IN THE HIGH COURT OF ORISSA AT CUTTACK
V. NARASINGH, J.
Bao Viet Insurance Corporaton - Appellant
Versus
MV World Virtue - Respondent
ADMLS No.7 of 2025
Decided On : 10-12-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. court fees payment confirmation. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. reliefs sought in admiralty suit. (Para 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 3. arguments on prima facie case. (Para 8) |
| 4. court's view on maintaining suit and cause of action. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. final order for vessel arrest and subsequent actions. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
ORDER :
V. NARASINGH, J.
I.A No.35 of 2025
1. This is an application for payment of court fees.
2. Learned counsel for the Plaintiff submits that in the meanwhile deficit court fees of Rs.23,150/- has already been paid. Memo filed to the said effect is taken on record.
3. In view of the same, no further order need be passed in this I.A seeking extension of time to file the deficit court fees.
4. I.A is accordingly disposed of.
5. Registry is called upon to number the ADMLS.
6. This Court is informed that the present ADMLS shall be numbered as ADMLS No.7 of 2025.
02. ADMLS No.7 of 2025 and I.A Nos.34 & 36 of 2025
1. This matter was mentioned yesterday by the learned counsel for the Plaintiff, Mr. Biswal. At the time of mentioning, it was submitted at the Bar that there is a caveat. Therefore, learned counsel for the Plaintiff was asked to serve a copy of the petition on the caveator.
2. Ms. Maheshwari, learned counsel submits that she has entered appearance on behalf of the Defendant-vessel by filing Caveat No.2 of 2025 which was filed in ADMLS No.6 of 2025 and the same may be adopted in the present case as per Regulation No.30 of the Orissa High Court Admiralty (Jurisdiction and Settlement of Maritime Claims) Rules, 2020 [30. Caveat against arrest of property:-
(1) Any person desiring to prevent the arrest of any property shall file in the Registry a praecipe, signed by himself or his Advocate, who may be acting for him requesting that caveat be entered against the arrest of the said property and undertaking to enter an appearance in person or by a Vakalatnama in any suit that may be instituted against the said property and to give security in such suit in a sum not exceeding the amount to be stated in the praecipe or to pay such sum into the Registry. The caveat shall contain the name, address and e- mail address of the caveator and/or his advocate, as the case may be. A caveat against the issue of a warrant for the arrest of the said property shall thereupon be entered in a book to be kept in the Registry, called the “Caveat Warrant Book”. The Caveat Warrant Book shall state the amount of security that the caveator has undertaken to provide as per praecipe.
(2) Copy of plaint in suit against property to be served before filing plaint on the caveator-Any person instituting a suit against any property in respect of which a caveat has been entered in the “Caveat Warrant Book” shall, before filing the plaint, serve a copy thereof upon the party on whose behalf the caveat has been entered or upon his Advocate and annex to the plaint a statement of such service.
(3) Caveator to give security on filing of plaint-Within three days from the filing of the plaint, the party on whose behalf the caveat has been entered shall, if the sum in which the suit has been instituted does not exceed the amount for which he has given the undertaking, give security in such sum or pay the same into the Registry, or if exceeds that amount, give security to the sum in which the suit has been instituted or pay the same into the Registry.
(4) On default, the suit may proceed ex parte-After the expiration of three days from the filing of the plaint, if the party on whose behalf 'a caveat has been entered shall not have given security in such sum or paid the same into the Registry, the plaintiff may apply to the Registrar to set down the suit forthwith for hearing as an undefended, suit;
Provided that the Court may on good cause shown and on such terms as to payment of costs as it may impose, extend the time for giving security or paying the money into the Registry.
(5) Judgment on the claim and enforcement of Judgment on the claim payment-When t
The court upheld the arrest of a vessel due to a prima facie maritime claim regarding cargo shortfall, emphasizing the necessity to protect the Plaintiff's rights without immediate security requireme....
An action in rem against a vessel can coexist with arbitration proceedings, and the arrest of the vessel is permissible despite the invocation of arbitration.
The court confirmed that maritime claims under the Admiralty Act, 2017 allow arresting a vessel for dues irrespective of ownership, emphasizing the ship's distinct legal personality.
A breach of contract in maritime agreements may support claims for damages and penalties under the Admiralty Act 2017, classifying such disputes as maritime claims.
The court held that a plaintiff designated as a 'U.S. Persons' under U.S. Sanctions Laws cannot invoke admiralty jurisdiction for arresting a vessel as security for arbitration, rendering the arrest ....
The court affirmed that a breach of contract under the Admiralty Act justifies a maritime claim, requiring the defendant to furnish security for damages due to failure in contractual obligations.
A claim for refund of detention charges does not fall within admiralty jurisdiction if it is not connected to a maritime claim involving a vessel.
The court established that the arrest of a vessel under the Admiralty Act requires strict adherence to the conditions set forth in Section 5, and failure to meet these conditions renders the arrest o....
An action in rem under admiralty law can proceed despite an arbitration clause, as such actions are intended for obtaining security for maritime claims.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.